You do not need a ram disk. There is a registry entry (can't remember what
it is at the moment) that will cause the kernel to stay in memory, which is
what I think that you want to do. In other examples I have seen, I believe
that the paging file is turned off also.
If I can find the
-Original Message-
From: Bobby Heid [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 12:53 PM
To: 'The Hardware List'
Subject: RE: [H] Ramdisk or ram drive in physical ram ?
You do not need a ram disk. There is a registry entry (can't remember what
it is at the moment
These kernel-in-memory tweak has also proven to be bunk.
From: Bobby Heid [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], The Hardware List
hardware@hardwaregroup.com
To: 'The Hardware List' hardware@hardwaregroup.com
Subject: RE: [H] Ramdisk or ram drive in physical ram ?
Date: Wed, 20 Jul
At 03:14 PM 20/07/2005, Hayes Elkins wrote:
These kernel-in-memory tweak has also proven to be bunk.
Thanks Hayes. I thought I'd read that somewhere. There is a page that
debunks a lot of those tweaks, but I can't remember the URL.
T
Ditto. I was hoping not to called out and have to google the damn thing at
work :)
From: Thane Sherrington [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: The Hardware List hardware@hardwaregroup.com
To: The Hardware List hardware@hardwaregroup.com
Subject: RE: [H] Ramdisk or ram drive in physical ram ?
Date: Wed
Subject: RE: [H] Ramdisk or ram drive in physical ram ?
Ditto. I was hoping not to called out and have to google the damn thing at
work :)
From: Thane Sherrington [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: The Hardware List hardware@hardwaregroup.com
To: The Hardware List hardware@hardwaregroup.com
Subject: RE: [H
At 04:50 PM 20/07/2005, Bobby Heid wrote:
I have not used the tweak, but I can not find anything talking bad about it.
What is it saying is bad about it?
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD/XPMyths.html
(Hope I beat Hayes.)
LargeSystemCache Tweak
Myth - Enabling this improves disk
From: Thane Sherrington [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: The Hardware List hardware@hardwaregroup.com
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], The Hardware List hardware@hardwaregroup.com
Subject: RE: [H] Ramdisk or ram drive in physical ram ?
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 17:11:19 -0300
At 04:50 PM 20/07/2005, Bobby Heid wrote
At 05:15 PM 20/07/2005, Hayes Elkins wrote:
BASTARD!
LOL! This makes up for the eternal drubbings you hand me in FFL. :)
T
At 05:15 PM 20/07/2005, Hayes Elkins wrote:
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD/XPMyths.html
I'm starting to question this guy because of this:
System Requirements
Myth - Windows XP requires a high end PC to install and run
Reality - Windows XP can be installed on surprisingly low
At 05:15 PM 20/07/2005, Hayes Elkins wrote:
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD/XPMyths.html
This guy is out to lunch.
Here's another myth that he has debunked and he's wrong.
Hosts File
Myth - Special AntiSpyware Hosts Files help prevent Spyware infections.
Reality - Hosts Files are
: [H] Ramdisk or ram drive in physical ram ?
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 17:20:22 -0300
At 05:15 PM 20/07/2005, Hayes Elkins wrote:
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD/XPMyths.html
I'm starting to question this guy because of this:
System Requirements
Myth - Windows XP requires a high end PC
At 05:24 PM 20/07/2005, Hayes Elkins wrote:
Believe it or not I've seen 128MB workstations running XP pro. Not very
fast, but usuable to run a custom app and citrix published apps.
I hadn't thought of that. I just found that with 128MB, one couldn't run
IE well, so I wrote off that level
I believe PII/III level celerons
From: Thane Sherrington [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: The Hardware List hardware@hardwaregroup.com
To: The Hardware List hardware@hardwaregroup.com
Subject: RE: [H] Ramdisk or ram drive in physical ram ?
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 17:32:46 -0300
At 05:24 PM 20/07
At 05:34 PM 20/07/2005, Hayes Elkins wrote:
I believe PII/III level celerons
I wonder if a faster CPU would make a difference with lower RAM, or if it
was Citrix that made the difference. My experience was with a Duron 1200
and 128MB, used by a woman who did email and Internet. Painfully
Thane Sherrington wrote:
233 MHz CPU (300 MHz Recommended)
128 MB Recommended (64 MB of RAM minimum supported, may limit performance
and some features)
1.5 GB of available hard disk space
Super VGA (800 x 600) or higher-resolution video adapter and monitor
CD-ROM or DVD drive
Keyboard and
Subject: RE: [H] Ramdisk or ram drive in physical ram ?
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 17:40:58 -0300
At 05:34 PM 20/07/2005, Hayes Elkins wrote:
I believe PII/III level celerons
I wonder if a faster CPU would make a difference with lower RAM, or if it
was Citrix that made the difference. My experience
At 03:46 PM 7/20/2005, you wrote:
I ran Windows 2000 Server on a PII 300 with a 9gb scsi drive and 128MB
RAM. Windows can handle low end hardware well.
Yes I ran 2000 Server, only 4 clients, on a AMD K62 550 with 128 megs of
RAM. I eventually increased that to 384 megs and while it made a big
18 matches
Mail list logo
